I mean, if there are people who want to buy it, why not? It would just be icing on the cake for Bethesda.
but it’s not like they add it for no reason.
I didn't say anything about that. I'm saying the main reason Bethesda removed Denuvo from Doom Eternal is likely because of cost reasons, not because it's a marketing play to drive sales (like OP suggested).
Sorry but that doesn't really make sense. In that scenario it is more sensible to just release a DRM free game at start, because the first group would buy either way and the second group would buy at the higher launch/near-launch pricing (since games drop in prices over time). It doesn't make sense to make essentially 2 versions of the game over such a span of time like you described.
A more realistic scenario would be that there is some cost / licensing fee to use Denuvo tech and it no longer makes financial sense for Doom Eternal to do so, hence BOOM! DRM free.
OP is flagging a legitimate issue that can actually put instance owners at risk. Raising the issue that instance owners can unwittingly host illegal content and be liable for it - how is that entitled?
Totally understand that Lemmy devs are a small team, but the growth of use of the software is exploding now, and not being able to keep up is a problem of scale - gatekeeping others from raising issues does not help it get better and in fact discourages issue reports and promotes a head-in-the-sand culture.
Users =/= Subscribers. Most of these users are probably not paying users so from a financial perspective it does not hurt Netflix to shed them.
Interesting read! Definitely a useful breakdown and I see the reasoning. Thanks for sharing.
Yes fair use has its stipulations but AI is breaking new grounds here. We are no longer dealing with the reaction videos but in an era where literally dozen of pages of content can be generated in a matter of minutes, with relatively little human involvement. Perhaps it's time to revisit if the law still holds in light of these new technology and tools.
Sure, but even under this guidance copyright owners of the training data are still shafted, based on how the data is scraped pretty much freely. Can an opportunist generate an unofficial sequel to Harry Potter, do the minimum to ensure they get copyright and reap the reward from it?
How do you tell if a piece of work contains AI generated content or not?
It's not hard to generate a piece of AI content, put in some hours to round out AI's signatures / common mistakes, and pass it off as your own. So in practise it's still easy to benefit from AI systems by masking generate content as largely your own.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Just because he wrote a character letter does not mean he is actively involved in covering up a crime, that's a gigantic leap.
And what would that be? A person who vouches for his friend? Someone who misjudged another person's character, a mistake presumably you'd never make?
No, you think it's fun to judge and it's your excuse to feel morally righteous and superior. You've made some accusations and backhanded disparagement based on what info? How is any part of it "fair"?